R v WILTON

The appellant, R v Wilton, appealed against his conviction by a jury for trafficking in a large commercial quantity of cannabis. The conviction arose from the discovery of three groups of bagged cannabis in the boot of a motor vehicle driven by the appellant's half-brother, Hallion. The appellant's fingerprints were found on ten of the twelve plastic shopping bags and on one of the buckets containing the cannabis. The appellant provided an explanation, stating that Hallion must have used plastic bags from his home, which he used for shopping, and that these bags, therefore, bore his fingerprints.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, given the appellant's explanation for the presence of his fingerprints. This required the court to consider the probative force of the fingerprint evidence in light of the appellant's defence and to determine if the prosecution had established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Vanstone J, with whom Bampton J agreed, dismissed the appeal. Their Honours reasoned that while the appellant's explanation was not manifestly implausible, it was for the jury to assess all the evidence and weigh the appellant's explanation. The guilty verdict necessarily implied that the jury rejected the appellant's innocent explanation. The prosecution's evidence was considered capable of excluding any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, and the jury was entitled to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In contrast, Nicholson J dissented, finding that, after considering all the evidence, there remained a reasonable possibility that the appellant's prints were innocently deposited. Consequently, Nicholson J concluded that it was not open for the jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and would have allowed the appeal.